http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=165&modelid=12152
and possibly a new pair of shorts.
and possibly a new pair of shorts.
-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
I'm going to need to mortgage the house now...
- Thread starter knightly
- Start date
I want a handheld 24p 1080 camera under $5K.
Sure, I'll be waiting a while, but the wait will be worth it!
Sure, I'll be waiting a while, but the wait will be worth it!
. It's a big camera but it isn't shoulder mount either. Much akin to the FX1/Z1 size.
Under debate.
Chris Hurd believes so and he's a good reliable source of course
. Basically it *seems* to boil down to this:
1) It is NOT the same thing as Sony's "cineframe 24" mode
2) The CCDs ARE interlaced
3) It isn't the same as Canon's frame movie mode
Canon seems to have found a way to capture each field at the same time and then read this out like a normal interlaced camera. That is to say, capture the entire frame, read out field one, read out field two, combine both fields afterwords (not by interpolation but merely add 1 + 2 together since they were captured at the same time), and then perform a pulldown to a normal interlaced stream just as the DVX does with material from a progressive chip. The DVX on the other hand would capture the entire frame at once, just like the canon, and then read the data off the chip one line at a time rather than field by field.
So yeah, it would seem so. I don't understand the details yet but it seems to be the real thing just achieved by a different process than reading out each line sequentially as a progressive scan chip would (hence the reason they can't really call it "progressive" anc chose F instead).
Chris Hurd believes so and he's a good reliable source of course
. Basically it *seems* to boil down to this:1) It is NOT the same thing as Sony's "cineframe 24" mode
2) The CCDs ARE interlaced
3) It isn't the same as Canon's frame movie mode
Canon seems to have found a way to capture each field at the same time and then read this out like a normal interlaced camera. That is to say, capture the entire frame, read out field one, read out field two, combine both fields afterwords (not by interpolation but merely add 1 + 2 together since they were captured at the same time), and then perform a pulldown to a normal interlaced stream just as the DVX does with material from a progressive chip. The DVX on the other hand would capture the entire frame at once, just like the canon, and then read the data off the chip one line at a time rather than field by field.
So yeah, it would seem so. I don't understand the details yet but it seems to be the real thing just achieved by a different process than reading out each line sequentially as a progressive scan chip would (hence the reason they can't really call it "progressive" anc chose F instead).
http://www.dvinfo.net (spank me if I'm posting info about a rival site) has videos up with footage from the Canon XL H1. It's in M2T format, so you'll probably need VLC to play it. WOW! I want one now...I'm going to go sell blood...
HD is a contentious issue for me. On the one hand the crisp look of HD is amazing, on the other hand your props, costumes and locations have to be 'HD ready' and you can't get away with as much sloppy stuff as you could b4 with regular film. I imagine its harder to fix in post because of this also.
However, if it gives a better film look on the big screen than DV I'll use it. However I know some people seem to think that the last starwars suffered from being shot on HD, that it was still not as smooth as film.
But to be honest right now I'm loving the look of 16mm b+w.
However, if it gives a better film look on the big screen than DV I'll use it. However I know some people seem to think that the last starwars suffered from being shot on HD, that it was still not as smooth as film.
But to be honest right now I'm loving the look of 16mm b+w.
Last edited: